Climate change will not disrupt Europe’s evolutionary diversity

Climate change is predicted to thin out Europe's species, but should preserve …

The Earth and the variety of species that inhabit it have experienced and survived climate changes before. However, there is evidence that certain clades—meaning individual "branches" on the tree of life comprising a species and all of its living descendants—are more sensitive than others to rapid climate changes. If this is indeed the case, climate change could lead to a loss of these branches, pruning the tree of life in a skewed manner.

To determine whether the current changes in the climate could trigger something like this, researchers in Spain, Portugal, and France examined the effect of climate change on phylogenetic diversity in Europe. Their findings, reported in this week’s Nature, indicate that Europe is not facing a large drop in this diversity.

1280 plants, 340 birds, and 140 mammals were included in their analysis. Since climate change is not projected to be identical across all geographic areas, they first checked to see if related species were predicted to be subject to similar amounts of changes in their preferred climates. As expected, they were. Mammals were less vulnerable to climate change than plants or birds (so the climate probably can’t be blamed for the declining human birthrate across the continent).

Next, they used three different forecasts of conditions in 2020, 2050, and 2080 to test whether predicted losses due to climate changes would cause a greater decline in phylogenetic diversity than random species loss. And last, they looked at whether any expected changes in phylogenetic diversity would be structured spatially, affecting species in only some parts of the continent. They conclude that the loss of European phylogenetic diversity shouldn't be greater than if extinctions were spread randomly across clades—the vulnerable species do not have fewer, or closer, relatives than those in other clades.

However, they warn of a homogenization of phylogenetic diversity across Europe. Different regions are not equally affected by climate change, and southern Europe currently harbors a higher degree of phylogenic diversity than northern Europe. Under all conditions tested, they found a restructuring of this spatial distribution due to species migrating north and to higher elevations. Thus, they anticipate that a loss of phylogenetic diversity around the Mediterranean will be accompanied, but not offset, by a gain north of the Alps.

This study seems to be one of those "we-pretty-much-knew-that-this-would-occur-but-had-to-do-a-study-to-confirm-that-it-did". As the earth warms, plants will migrate to the areas where the climate most suits them.

This study seems to be one of those "we-pretty-much-knew-that-this-would-occur-but-had-to-do-a-study-to-confirm-that-it-did". As the earth warms, plants will migrate to the areas where the climate most suits them.

Never seen a plant migrate But yeah, their seeds will take root where the climate suits it and won't take root where it doesn't.

Ugh. I was almost happy that Ars finally didn't have an alarmist climate change article. But then optimism turned to dissapointment when I read "However, they warn of a homogenization of phylogenetic diversity across Europe."

Which will never be the case, unless animals develop rapid transit systems such as trains and planes and automobiles.

They worry about species loss and unless you're in a very small micro climate it is not going to be a concern. Everything (populations, not individuals) can move faster than climate change. As animals move so do the seeds of the plants they eat. They bring their plants with them.

The thresholds for climate change to affect diversity is when it changes either population distribution by limiting movement, or increasing it such that a once local population can explode over a larger geographic area, thus negatively impacting the native species. (We actually have examples of single boulders accomplishing this with squirrel populations in the Grand Canyon.)

But humans have done far more than climate will ever do, putting feral hogs everywhere. Human transport is rife with examples of invasive species due to commerce. I, myself can name the tiger lilly and the Asian stink bug, Japanese maple, snake head fish, and zebra mussel as invasive species within a 5 mile radius of where I am right now.

I would imagine that whole "heavily industrialized dense human population" thing would have clobbered Europe's "evolutionary diversity" long before humans got it in their head that they were powerful enough to destroy the planet (by whatever means).

What the climate-change-denying saddos don't realise is that going green isn't about saving the planet, it's about saving ourselves. Life on Earth has had no problem surviving climate changes in the past, it's survived mass extinctions, and given enough time it would survive a massive nuclear war. But we won't. Going Green is a fundamentally selfish activity for our species.

There is no precedent for the human impact on the Earth. So there is no way to predict its outcome. The event starting with the human adoption of agriculture is one of the major events in the Earth's history. Its ten thousand year time period is a very short on a biological time scale. The outcome of this event remains uncertain. Perhaps we will self destruct and just leave a scar in the Earth's history. But if human's manage to stabilize our existence, it will mean a major change to the nature of life on Earth. The outcome could easily be determined in the next century. But there is no way to predict it other than enumerating the vague shapes of some possibilities. Anything like the world we are used to today is among the less likely ones.

What the climate-change-denying saddos don't realise is that going green isn't about saving the planet, it's about saving ourselves. Life on Earth has had no problem surviving climate changes in the past, it's survived mass extinctions, and given enough time it would survive a massive nuclear war. But we won't. Going Green is a fundamentally selfish activity for our species.

So why won't humans, so far the most adaptable species on earth, survive climate change?

While I do believe that Thomas Malthus was fundamentally right on some level, he fell far short in predicting reality. In fact, I don't recall a single prediction of doom (of any variety) that was right (or we'd not be here discussing it).

So why won't humans, so far the most adaptable species on earth, survive climate change?

Oh, as a species we will, no problem. The concern is over economic and societal upheavals. Change in climate means change in food production patterns. Some areas will benefit from longer growing seasons and more temperate climate, while others will see increased drought and heat stress. Areas that already suffer from poor food security will get even more unstable.

Ugh. I was almost happy that Ars finally didn't have an alarmist climate change article. But then optimism turned to dissapointment when I read "However, they warn of a homogenization of phylogenetic diversity across Europe."

Which will never be the case, unless animals develop rapid transit systems such as trains and planes and automobiles.

Which you know...how?

Scorp1us wrote:

They worry about species loss and unless you're in a very small micro climate it is not going to be a concern. Everything (populations, not individuals) can move faster than climate change. As animals move so do the seeds of the plants they eat. They bring their plants with them.

Could you expand on this argument? It appears to be self-contradictory as you've stated it, and I suspect that you've left some stuff out.

Scorp1us wrote:

The thresholds for climate change to affect diversity is when it changes either population distribution by limiting movement, or increasing it such that a once local population can explode over a larger geographic area, thus negatively impacting the native species. (We actually have examples of single boulders accomplishing this with squirrel populations in the Grand Canyon.)

But humans have done far more than climate will ever do, putting feral hogs everywhere. Human transport is rife with examples of invasive species due to commerce. I, myself can name the tiger lilly and the Asian stink bug, Japanese maple, snake head fish, and zebra mussel as invasive species within a 5 mile radius of where I am right now.

This is a big non-sequitur. Just because humans have affected environments before does not mean that we are unable to affect them again via our carbon emissions. Also, just because you have labeled two ways in which something can affect diversity does not mean that there aren't other ways.

So why won't humans, so far the most adaptable species on earth, survive climate change?

Oh, as a species we will, no problem. The concern is over economic and societal upheavals. Change in climate means change in food production patterns. Some areas will benefit from longer growing seasons and more temperate climate, while others will see increased drought and heat stress. Areas that already suffer from poor food security will get even more unstable.

That's what we as human beings need to worry about.

I don't even agree that as a species we necessarily will. The assertion that we are the 'most adaptable species on earth' is silly, I'd take e-coli over a human any day for adapability. Humans, as most mammals, are extremely sensitive to their environment. Add some sulfer to the atmosphere, and we all die.

Oh look, thanks to ocean acidification we are close to potential sulfer blooms! What do ya know, we might not actually be able to survive some of the side effects of increasing CO2. Most of the plants will survive this, most of the sea creatures will, but the 'most adaptable' humans will not. Imagine that.

Ugh. I was almost happy that Ars finally didn't have an alarmist climate change article. But then optimism turned to dissapointment when I read "However, they warn of a homogenization of phylogenetic diversity across Europe."

Which will never be the case, unless animals develop rapid transit systems such as trains and planes and automobiles.

They worry about species loss and unless you're in a very small micro climate it is not going to be a concern. Everything (populations, not individuals) can move faster than climate change. As animals move so do the seeds of the plants they eat. They bring their plants with them.

The thresholds for climate change to affect diversity is when it changes either population distribution by limiting movement, or increasing it such that a once local population can explode over a larger geographic area, thus negatively impacting the native species. (We actually have examples of single boulders accomplishing this with squirrel populations in the Grand Canyon.)

But humans have done far more than climate will ever do, putting feral hogs everywhere. Human transport is rife with examples of invasive species due to commerce. I, myself can name the tiger lilly and the Asian stink bug, Japanese maple, snake head fish, and zebra mussel as invasive species within a 5 mile radius of where I am right now.

Wait, so plants and animals can't move their habitat from one area to another, but they aren't threatened by climate change because they can move their habitat faster than any change would affect it?

Maybe you have a point and actual argument somewhere, but what you've said contradicts itself.

This study seems to be one of those "we-pretty-much-knew-that-this-would-occur-but-had-to-do-a-study-to-confirm-that-it-did".

Well "we can all assume that X will happen to some degree, somehow, in some fashion" doesn't really fly in science. "Yep, living things change distribution" doesn't quite cut it. How do amphibians make out in all this? Freshwater fish? Pests? Invasive weeds? That stuff is all of at least economical importance.

Quote:

As the earth warms, plants will migrate to the areas where the climate most suits them.

This study seems to be one of those "we-pretty-much-knew-that-this-would-occur-but-had-to-do-a-study-to-confirm-that-it-did".

Well "we can all assume that X will happen to some degree, somehow, in some fashion" doesn't really fly in science. "Yep, living things change distribution" doesn't quite cut it. How do amphibians make out in all this? Freshwater fish? Pests? Invasive weeds? That stuff is all of at least economical importance.

Quote:

As the earth warms, plants will migrate to the areas where the climate most suits them.

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Who goes there?

King Arthur: It is I, Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon, from the castle of Camelot. King of the Britons, defeater of the Saxons, Sovereign of all England!

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Pull the other one!

King Arthur: I am, and this is my trusty servant Patsy. We have ridden the length and breadth of the land in search of knights who will join me in my court at Camelot. I must speak with your lord and master.

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: What? Ridden on a horse?

King Arthur: Yes!

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: You're using coconuts!

King Arthur: What?

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: You've got two empty halves of coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

King Arthur: So? We have ridden since the snows of winter covered this land, through the kingdom of Mercia, through...

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Where'd you get the coconuts?

King Arthur: We found them.

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!

King Arthur: What do you mean?

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Well, this is a temperate zone

King Arthur: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

King Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?

King Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

King Arthur: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?

I don't even agree that as a species we necessarily will. The assertion that we are the 'most adaptable species on earth' is silly,

Humans live from the topics to Antarctica, in deserts, rainforests, anywhere food can be found/raised/shipped. If an animal cannot survive with what nature provides, they can't live there. Only a few animals modify their habitat (and to relatively a small degree) to make things more survivable.

Quote:

I'd take e-coli over a human any day for adapability.

You want silly, this comparison is silly.

Quote:

Humans, as most mammals, are extremely sensitive to their environment.

Humans use fire to make the cold go away, humans use air conditioning, houses, and other means to make the heat go away or become more bearable. Animals do not (and neither does e-coli unless I am very misinformed).

Quote:

Add some sulfer to the atmosphere, and we all die.

Along with almost all other terrestrial life. But some will probably survive breathing filtered air, something no animal has been observed to do in the wild (again, unless I am sadly misinformed).

Quote:

Oh look, thanks to ocean acidification we are close to potential sulfer blooms! What do ya know, we might not actually be able to survive some of the side effects of increasing CO2.

What's the death toll so far?

Quote:

Most of the plants will survive this, most of the sea creatures will, but the 'most adaptable' humans will not. Imagine that.

This study seems to be one of those "we-pretty-much-knew-that-this-would-occur-but-had-to-do-a-study-to-confirm-that-it-did". As the earth warms, plants will migrate to the areas where the climate most suits them.

Never seen a plant migrate But yeah, their seeds will take root where the climate suits it and won't take root where it doesn't.

I don't even agree that as a species we necessarily will. The assertion that we are the 'most adaptable species on earth' is silly,

Humans live from the topics to Antarctica, in deserts, rainforests, anywhere food can be found/raised/shipped. If an animal cannot survive with what nature provides, they can't live there. Only a few animals modify their habitat (and to relatively a small degree) to make things more survivable.

In order to accomplish this, humans take resources from one region and apply them to another. Without success in more hospitable regions, living in Antarctica becomes impossible. The more inhospitable the planet as a whole becomes, the fewer and fewer regions can be economically supported as 'habitable'. Do you really think Las Vegas can support the number of people living there now? If resources elsewhere decline, the amount of money that flows to Nevada which enables them to purchase the resources they do not have declines, thus reducing the area back to inhospitable desert.

Quote:

Quote:

I'd take e-coli over a human any day for adapability.

You want silly, this comparison is silly.

Why? You made the assertion about all species. Thousands of insects, reptiles, bacteria, plants, ocean life and even some surface life has proven to be more adaptable than humans.

Quote:

Quote:

Humans, as most mammals, are extremely sensitive to their environment.

Humans use fire to make the cold go away, humans use air conditioning, houses, and other means to make the heat go away or become more bearable. Animals do not (and neither does e-coli unless I am very misinformed).

All of those things require resources. Including food resources. We do not magically do those things. We have a dependency chain. That chain is now being threatened.

Quote:

Quote:

Add some sulfer to the atmosphere, and we all die.

Along with almost all other terrestrial life. But some will probably survive breathing filtered air, something no animal has been observed to do in the wild (again, unless I am sadly misinformed).

No, most terrestrial life will be fine. Air breathers will not be. If you think human culture is sustainable with everyone wearing breathing masks, to say nothing of the fact that the entire supply chain being destroyed(you gonna fit all the cows and chickens with breathing masks too???), you are off in bizarro land. Why would this be an acceptable future for humanity vs common sense alternatives that can be used to avoid that future now?

Quote:

Quote:

Oh look, thanks to ocean acidification we are close to potential sulfer blooms! What do ya know, we might not actually be able to survive some of the side effects of increasing CO2.

What's the death toll so far?

The last time it was 95% of all surface animal species. It hasn't happened quite yet, CO2 has to get a bit higher. It is a risk in about 20 years at current rates, the Black Sea could be the first to release massive amounts of sulfur.

Quote:

Quote:

Most of the plants will survive this, most of the sea creatures will, but the 'most adaptable' humans will not. Imagine that.

How well do plants tolerate sulphur?

Pretty well actually. They thrived during the last CO2 explosion. Land animals did not.

Silly ars, there is no evolution, and how dare you mention such a thing in the title... God created everything just as it is today, and if anything, like climate, is to change (and it isnt), it would be god's punishment for the world's slow growing acceptance of homosexuals...

Its faster pased here, so thats why there was 9/11... and Katrina... and Justin Beiber...

So why won't humans, so far the most adaptable species on earth, survive climate change?

Ignoring the fact theat we're not the most adaptable species on Earth, we're not talking about the extinction of humans any more than we're talking about the destruction of all life on Earth.

We're talking about the current 7 billion people. If there is significant climate change, the Earth may only support 5 billion or 2 billion people. Now, if you're one of those missing billions, no one may care, but if my girlfriend or her kids are part of those missing billions, I'd very much care.

Being in a privileged location or country may afford you some benefit, but as our recent flooding has demonstrated, even developed nations with flood prevention and mitigation controls in place can suffer massive destruction of infrastructure. Our Queensland floods are going to cost us something like $30 billion to repair/rebuild. If we received that kind of flooding in Sydney or Melbourne instead of (predominantly) rural Queensland, our economy would be fucked, the damage would have been greater, and we wouldn't be able to afford to repair.

If this kind of thing happens more and more around the world, there'll be no more money for aid or bailouts. Food prices here have already spiked because of the agricultural losses, and I can imagine famines becoming a lot more common in the future.

As I said, you may not miss those around you, but I don't particularly want to see those I care about starve to death.

I don't even agree that as a species we necessarily will. The assertion that we are the 'most adaptable species on earth' is silly,

Humans live from the topics to Antarctica, in deserts, rainforests, anywhere food can be found/raised/shipped. If an animal cannot survive with what nature provides, they can't live there. Only a few animals modify their habitat (and to relatively a small degree) to make things more survivable.

In order to accomplish this, humans take resources from one region and apply them to another. Without success in more hospitable regions, living in Antarctica becomes impossible. The more inhospitable the planet as a whole becomes, the fewer and fewer regions can be economically supported as 'habitable'.

Not my point, the issue here is adaptability.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I'd take e-coli over a human any day for adapability.

You want silly, this comparison is silly.

Why? You made the assertion about all species.

Which you've yet to respond to.

Quote:

Thousands of insects, reptiles, bacteria, plants, ocean life and even some surface life has proven to be more adaptable than humans.

Don't think so, most are adapted for a specific environment and if that changes and they can't move elsewhere, they die. The Galapagos ecosystem is doomed, eventually.

Some bacteria may be hardier, but they do not adapt.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Humans, as most mammals, are extremely sensitive to their environment.

Humans use fire to make the cold go away, humans use air conditioning, houses, and other means to make the heat go away or become more bearable. Animals do not (and neither does e-coli unless I am very misinformed).

All of those things require resources.

Irrelevant to the point issue of adaptibility. No animals make fire, few land animals can do better than find shade in the heat (beavers come to mind, they make their own shade).

Quote:

Including food resources. We do not magically do those things. We have a dependency chain. That chain is now being threatened.

Yeah, we're all gonna die.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Add some sulfer to the atmosphere, and we all die.

Along with almost all other terrestrial life. But some will probably survive breathing filtered air, something no animal has been observed to do in the wild (again, unless I am sadly misinformed).

No, most terrestrial life will be fine. Air breathers will not be.

Most land animals are air breathers, as are insects and fish (indirectly).

Quote:

If you think human culture is sustainable with everyone wearing breathing masks, to say nothing of the fact that the entire supply chain being destroyed(you gonna fit all the cows and chickens with breathing masks too???), you are off in bizarro land.

I think you can't read, or you have no idea what the word "some" means.

Quote:

Why would this be an acceptable future for humanity vs common sense alternatives that can be used to avoid that future now?

You can't avoid the future, and predictions of the future (even recent ones) have proven very wrong.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Oh look, thanks to ocean acidification we are close to potential sulfer blooms! What do ya know, we might not actually be able to survive some of the side effects of increasing CO2.

What's the death toll so far?

The last time it was 95% of all surface animal species. It hasn't happened quite yet,

So you don't understand what "so far" means either.

Quote:

CO2 has to get a bit higher.

Let's see, Dr, James Hansen says that the tipping point is 350 ppmv of CO2. Either he's wrong or it's already too late.

You need to define your use of adapability better then. You used the ability to make air conditioning and fire as earlier definitions. Both of those things require resources and a supply chain to do on any level of scale.

Quote:

Which you've yet to respond to.

I don't know what your definition of a species is, but I'll stick to the scientific one, thank you very much.

Quote:

Don't think so, most are adapted for a specific environment and if that changes and they can't move elsewhere, they die. The Galapagos ecosystem is doomed, eventually.

Many exist virtually everywhere humans do that they could also reach. Heck, just look at canines for a good example. To say nothing of smaller creatures like ants. Lots of species are as 'adaptable' as humans to any given environment, many without all the artificial devices humans utilize. Canines live from the arctic circle to desert scrublands. And they do it without air conditioning or fire. I think they have humans beat pretty well. Do we need to continue this ridiculous argument since clearly you know very little about species outside your own?

Quote:

Some bacteria may be hardier, but they do not adapt.

Uh, what? Bacteria adapt faster than just about any other lifeform. Due to how quickly they can reproduce, adaptions occur extremely quickly. Recently it made big news when e-coli managed to adapt a new trait, an ability to metabolize something it could not metabolize before. My significant other worked in the lab across the street from there using the evolutionary process of selection to increase wax ester yields produced by algae. Its amazing how fast bacteria can adapt and evolve, especially compared to longer lived organisms.

Quote:

Irrelevant to the point issue of adaptibility. No animals make fire, few land animals can do better than find shade in the heat (beavers come to mind, they make their own shade).

To make fire requires something to burn. To make air conditioners requires a massive economic and resource supply chain. Sure humans are fairly adaptable, and quite good at adapting the environment. But thats besides the point. Humans could not have existed, regardless of our adaptability, just a few million years ago. The environment did not support us. Its possible it could have supported other intelligent life comparable to our own, but humans as they exist today could not have existed as the resources we need to populate, and the atmosphere required for our survival were very different and no amount of adaption as you are choosing to define it would have helped that fact.

Quote:

Yeah, we're all gonna die.

Didn't say that. Said, however, that it is a possibility, among other scenarios.

Quote:

Most land animals are air breathers, as are insects and fish (indirectly).

Its not about if the air exists, its about if it contains what you need. And that totally depends upon what a given species absorbs from it. Plants do not absorb oxygen, they absorb CO2. A high CO2 environment will permit plants go grow very effectively. It will also kill humans above certain concentrations. Not all species live on the same things, even if they can coexist in the same biosphere.

Quote:

I think you can't read, or you have no idea what the word "some" means.

Or your not being very clear.

Quote:

You can't avoid the future, and predictions of the future (even recent ones) have proven very wrong.

Avoid? No. Mitigate? Absolutely. Its done all the time in every other sphere of human life. We have entire industries built around the idea of mitigating potential negative impacts upon individuals, groups, societies and cultures. The entire insurance industry exists based on this concept.

Quote:

So you don't understand what "so far" means either.

Or perhaps it seemed inapplicable when discussing potential future events.

Quote:

Let's see, Dr, James Hansen says that the tipping point is 350 ppmv of CO2. Either he's wrong or it's already too late.

Ok. So we should make the problem even worse? Its not like there is a point at which the future is fixed. Its a spectrum of effects, the further you go, the worse the outcome gets. For humans, anyways.

There was a special on PBS a few years back that detailed the impact that volcanos had on climate and human society. It demonstrated that singular eruptions at one place on the globe have routinely wiped out entire civilizations in other locations simply due to the effect the fallout had on the environment in those areas. Very fascinating. It takes a very, very small shift in climate to make entire cultures economically unsustainable. No matter how powerful the society, it simply did not matter. Once they could not grow as efficiently as they once did, the society begins a downward spiral.

In all of your human examples, humans are not adapting. In all those examples, man is using technology to adapt the environment to his/her needs. This is a result of technology, not human adaptation. It's not really debatable whether man is the most adaptive to change because it can be clearly demonstrated that bacteria and virii are much more adaptable.

Or perhaps it seemed inapplicable when discussing potential future events.

My specific question was "What's the death toll so far?". It's still above for all to see. It's a question about right now, not the future.

And it was in response to this text of yours.

Quote:

Oh look, thanks to ocean acidification we are close to potential sulfer blooms! What do ya know, we might not actually be able to survive some of the side effects of increasing CO2.

Once again, your response makes no sense. I was discussing a future event. If you want the death toll 'so far' you have to go back a few tens of millions of years till the last time it occurred. As I said, it was around 95% of the population of land animals.

I am not sure if you are dense, or if you simply believe tommorrow will never come. But its perfectly reasonable to be concerned about future events when someone starts replicating the conditions that led to those events in the past.

Or perhaps it seemed inapplicable when discussing potential future events.

My specific question was "What's the death toll so far?". It's still above for all to see. It's a question about right now, not the future.

And it was in response to this text of yours.

Quote:

Oh look, thanks to ocean acidification we are close to potential sulfer blooms! What do ya know, we might not actually be able to survive some of the side effects of increasing CO2.

Once again, your response makes no sense. I was discussing a future event.

I guess you must be expecting a binary event then, something akin to that movie, "The Day After The Tipping Point", eh? One day, sunny and clear, next day, under 50 meters of ice.

Quote:

If you want the death toll 'so far' you have to go back a few tens of millions of years till the last time it occurred.

This will give the death toll for today's rising CO2 how? That was what *I* was asking for.

Quote:

As I said, it was around 95% of the population of land animals.

You are the original source for that? Wow.

Quote:

I am not sure if you are dense,

Pretty standard density actually, near that of water.

Quote:

or if you simply believe tommorrow will never come.

Now there's a linguistic can of worms. My long term observation of how piss poor all predictions of the future have been remains however.

Quote:

But its perfectly reasonable to be concerned about future events when someone starts replicating the conditions that led to those events in the past.

Along similar lines, it is observed that CO2 levels don't increase until 800-1000 years *after* an ice-age ends, and it is claimed that one CO2 levels rise they accelerated said warming. Now were this positive feedback loop to actually exist, then we'd have something like (more CO2) -> (more warming) -> (even more CO2) -> (even more warming) etc.. till there was no more CO2 to outgas or some other limit was reached. And to the best of my knowledge such a thing has not been observed to happen (and face it, we're here to argue about it). So the exact role of CO2 seems open to question, but superficially it seems to be a result of the warming rather than it's cause.

And the so-called mitigation strategies basically shut down out energy supplies, transportation, food chain, and means to make a living. I'm unclear how this is a desirable solution.

My specific question was "What's the death toll so far?". It's still above for all to see. It's a question about right now, not the future.

And it was in response to this text of yours.

Quote:

Oh look, thanks to ocean acidification we are close to potential sulfer blooms! What do ya know, we might not actually be able to survive some of the side effects of increasing CO2.

The text in question was intended to point out that climate change is but one downside to mounting CO2. Ocean Acidification is another. That one can lead to major sulfar releases, as it has in the past. The death toll related to such an event is currently zero in our current biosphere because, well, it is an event that has not occurred yet. But its one thats increasing in probability. Scientific American had a very nice article covering it, if you wish to trouble yourself to find it.

Quote:

I guess you must be expecting a binary event then, something akin to that movie, "The Day After The Tipping Point", eh? One day, sunny and clear, next day, under 50 meters of ice.

I never said this. That said, the closest potential for this type of event would be a massive sulfur release. The last time it happened it took between five and eight years to wipe out most surface life. Thats certainly not an overnight effect, but it is far too quick for most land animals, including humans, to adapt.

Quote:

This will give the death toll for today's rising CO2 how? That was what *I* was asking for.

Explained above. Asking irrelevant questions only leads to irrelevant answers, which is why I've tried to answer the problem rather than your specific question.

Quote:

You are the original source for that? Wow.

Use Google. Its well covered and understood. I'm not going to do your research for you, especially when you come in here with plenty of unsourced and unsupported assertions. If you want a citation war, feel free to do so by citing your own claims, including citations that actually disprove what others are stating.

Quote:

Now there's a linguistic can of worms. My long term observation of how piss poor all predictions of the future have been remains however.

Then you are a victim of selection and confirmation bias. Plenty of short and long term future predictions have come true. In climate and other fields of research.

Quote:

Along similar lines, it is observed that CO2 levels don't increase until 800-1000 years *after* an ice-age ends, and it is claimed that one CO2 levels rise they accelerated said warming. Now were this positive feedback loop to actually exist, then we'd have something like (more CO2) -> (more warming) -> (even more CO2) -> (even more warming) etc.. till there was no more CO2 to outgas or some other limit was reached. And to the best of my knowledge such a thing has not been observed to happen (and face it, we're here to argue about it). So the exact role of CO2 seems open to question, but superficially it seems to be a result of the warming rather than it's cause.

This claim has been debunked numerous times. You keep raising it. Hence my question about your density. Repeating something demonstrated to be false or misleading does not make it more 'true'. Not that you'll bother to read it, but more info can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... p-and-co2/

Quote:

And the so-called mitigation strategies basically shut down out energy supplies, transportation, food chain, and means to make a living. I'm unclear how this is a desirable solution.

Actually the current estimates would add about 3-6 cents per KWH. Which would put it well below the cost of most other regulatory expenses. Plus many of the mitigation requirements would themselves drive the cost of power lower, such as a move from coal to nuclear, which is vastly less expensive per KWH than coal(and even moreso once all costs are internalized). Furthermore, one can't just look at the problem by how it impacts one area, one has to look also at how a failure to mitigate will raise prices elsewhere. There are many estimates on that currently, and most see drastic price increases in energy, agriculture and transportation far beyond the mitigation costs.

However I don't think any of this matters to you. Regardless of people's responses, you simply ignore the inconvenient ones(like how in this very thread your claims about species adaptability, future predictions and costs have been thoroughly debunked) and continue repeating debunked claims about climate change. It is too bad, presumably you are a conservative, however a hallmark of conservatism is studying, understanding and learning from the past, using it as a guide to the future in order to avoid the pitfalls faced before. I do not know why so many conservatives stand against the science and history of the planet, its the epitomy of the liberal ideal to race into a future with consequences unknown and mitigation strategies not even considered, much less implemented.

a·dapt·a·ble /əˈdaptəbəl/ Adjective 1. Able to adjust to new conditions. 2. Able to be modified for a new use or purpose

If adopting to new conditions is done by putting on heavy clothing, it still seems to fit definition 1.

Quote:

This is a result of technology, not human adaptation.

How do you define technology?

Quote:

It's not really debatable whether man is the most adaptive to change because it can be clearly demonstrated that bacteria and virii are much more adaptable.

How do bacteria or viruses adopt?

Seems to me that bacteria and viruses are incapable of adopting (by your definition above), they simply can survive a wider range of conditions or selection pressure gives beneficial mutations the upper hand. But in either case, they would seem to fail that test for adaptability you opened with.

Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104

Hmmm, wonder where they got the data from 1751?

Quote:

That one can lead to major sulfar releases, as it has in the past.

I'm not aware of any place where sulphur us spelled "sulfar". And earlier you spelled it "sulfer blooms". Your attention to detail is not laudable.

Quote:

The death toll related to such an event is currently zero in our current biosphere because, well, it is an event that has not occurred yet.

So we're back to predictions of the future.

Quote:

But its one thats increasing in probability.

What's the probability now and how much has it increased?

Quote:

Scientific American had a very nice article covering it, if you wish to trouble yourself to find it.

Why should this article be any more accurate than Scientific American's article predicting more and bigger hurricanes? Seems they neglected to factor in things like the jet stream and el nina/nino. Who knows what they left out this time?

Quote:

Quote:

I guess you must be expecting a binary event then, something akin to that movie, "The Day After The Tipping Point", eh? One day, sunny and clear, next day, under 50 meters of ice.

I never said this.

You said it's not happened yet, right?

Quote:

That said, the closest potential for this type of event would be a massive sulfur release.

I thought the event you were talking about was a massive sulphur release.

Quote:

The last time it happened it took between five and eight years to wipe out most surface life.

The paleo(anything) record does not have that kind of resolution.

Quote:

Thats certainly not an overnight effect, but it is far too quick for most land animals, including humans, to adapt.

Humans have built many sealed environments.

Quote:

Quote:

You are the original source for that? Wow.

Use Google. Its well covered and understood. I'm not going to do your research for you,

Either there is some basis for what you claim, or there is not. If there is, only you know what it is, google does not.

Quote:

especially when you come in here with plenty of unsourced and unsupported assertions.

How funny, let me give you the same advice you *just* gave me, use google, I'm not going to do your research for you.

Quote:

If you want a citation war, feel free to do so by citing your own claims, including citations that actually disprove what others are stating.

You've not cited anything yet that I recall, except an unnamed article in Scientific American.

Quote:

Quote:

Now there's a linguistic can of worms. My long term observation of how piss poor all predictions of the future have been remains however.

Then you are a victim of selection and confirmation bias.

When your oracle makes bad predictions, you should not grant it any kind of certainty. How is observing that many predictions (winters will be a thing of the past by year 2000, more and bigger hurricanes) have not proven true selection and/or confirmation bias?

Quote:

Plenty of short and long term future predictions have come true. In climate and other fields of research.

Which ones have come true?

If you make enough predictions your bound to get some of them right by blind chance.

And the ones which have not come true remain.

Quote:

Quote:

Along similar lines, it is observed that CO2 levels don't increase until 800-1000 years *after* an ice-age ends, and it is claimed that one CO2 levels rise they accelerated said warming. Now were this positive feedback loop to actually exist, then we'd have something like (more CO2) -> (more warming) -> (even more CO2) -> (even more warming) etc.. till there was no more CO2 to outgas or some other limit was reached. And to the best of my knowledge such a thing has not been observed to happen (and face it, we're here to argue about it). So the exact role of CO2 seems open to question, but superficially it seems to be a result of the warming rather than it's cause.

This claim has been debunked numerous times.

Debunked? Is this that confirmation and/or selection bias you were talking about?

You missed the issue clean. This web page does not address the issue of the positive feedback at all. But it does restate the issue somewhat

---changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing

Now this is the way it works, CO2's solubility in water is inversely related to temperature...

---Gas solubility decreases as the temperature of water increases (except when both pressure exceeds 300 bar and temperature exceeds 393 K, only found near deep geothermal vents)

Therefore as the earth warms, so do the oceans, and as they warm, the amount of CO2 they can hold decreases, gas above the amount the water can hold at any given temperature will outgas, in much the same manner as C02 bubbles in a glass of soda.

Now if more CO2 in the atmosphere means the temperature will rise, then we have a positive feedback loop as previously posted "(more CO2) -> (more warming) -> (even more CO2) -> (even more warming) etc.. till there was no more CO2 to outgas or some other limit was reached."

Let me know if you don't understand it this time.

And if you need a web-page to argue the issue, then perhaps you don't have enough information to be discussing it at all.

Quote:

Quote:

And the so-called mitigation strategies basically shut down out energy supplies, transportation, food chain, and means to make a living. I'm unclear how this is a desirable solution.

Actually the current estimates would add about 3-6 cents per KWH.

They said pretty much the same thing in the UK, now they have a new term "fuel poverty", which is when you can afford to heat your home, or buy food, but not both.

Quote:

Which would put it well below the cost of most other regulatory expenses.

For example?

Quote:

Plus many of the mitigation requirements would themselves drive the cost of power lower,

Very funny, wind subsidies are worth more than the power created by the turbines.

Quote:

such as a move from coal to nuclear, which is vastly less expensive per KWH than coal(and even moreso once all costs are internalized).

We ain't moving to nuclear in the US however.

Quote:

Furthermore, one can't just look at the problem by how it impacts one area, one has to look also at how a failure to mitigate will raise prices elsewhere.

You mean estimates by parties with a vested interest?

Quote:

There are many estimates on that currently, and most see drastic price increases in energy, agriculture and transportation far beyond the mitigation costs.

Yeah, prices are way up right now, but it ain't AGW causing it. Perhaps if you could show causality?

Quote:

However I don't think any of this matters to you.

Anyone who parrots a web-page is not thinking to begin with.

Quote:

Regardless of people's responses, you simply ignore the inconvenient ones(like how in this very thread your claims about species adaptability,

No, I responded to them.

Quote:

future predictions and costs have been thoroughly debunked)

Repeated claims do not prove anything, and you are ignoring the reality of the carbon markets in Europe.

Quote:

and continue repeating debunked claims about climate change.

Just keep showing everyone reading that you are highly biased, although it should be obvious enough from your prose.

Quote:

It is too bad, presumably you are a conservative,

Ahh, even more bias. How nice.

Quote:

however a hallmark of conservatism is studying, understanding and learning from the past,

Even more bias again.

Quote:

using it as a guide to the future in order to avoid the pitfalls faced before.

I don't recall that the AGW issue has come up historically to provide guidance, please clue me in.

Quote:

I do not know why so many conservatives stand against the science and history of the planet,

Oh my.

Quote:

its the epitomy of the liberal ideal to race into a future with consequences unknown and mitigation strategies not even considered, much less implemented.

I would assume from your political diatribe that you consider yourself a liberal.